I'd suggested CXT start a new thread on subtle racism, since in the gay adoption thread he'd suggested it was inappropriate to say a "lot" of white people still had subtle racist feelings. Since a google search "racism america" turned up an interesting article on the subtlety of modern racism, on hit #2, I followed my own advice to see what others might think about american racism today. Here's the article:

That is not exactly what I suggested---what I actually said/was getting at was that making assumptions about the attitudes of millions of people that you have never met, based upon their SKIN COLOR was fundamentally flawed---which it is.

Just as flawed as making assumptions about the viewpoints and behaviors of gay people--based solely upon their sexual oientation.

People are far more than cut-outs of their gendar, race and sexual preference.
And to treat them otherwise is to rob them of their individuality---it robs them of themselevs.

Back the article--the article is flailing attempt to establish what can't be even be measured.

Things are so much better now than they were 50 years ago that now they have to invent a whole new catagory "stealth" racism.

Interesting to note the drastic differences between what people claim to precive in OTHERS but NOT themselevs.

Its like the whole health care thing---most people think their health care is pretty good--too expensive but good--they are far more worried about OTHER peoples lack of good health care---so depending on how you report the numbers makes a serious difference in how it "looks."

There are a tremendous number of people--and an entire political party that are heavily invested in the nagative in this nation.
If things ever got really good they would be out of a job.
So natually, things never really get better.

Take the article apart--it talks about real estate people steering black people "toward predominatly black neiborhoods"--with NO context as to the buyers actual preference--or personal bias--Thomas Sowell writes extensivly about this in his book The Quest For Cosmic Justice--there are a LOT of explainations that nobody looks at because "rascism" is the default setting all to many times--and without the context, it becomes impossible to seperate it out.

Besides, when students all over the USA are self-segragating along racial/sexual orientation dorms at University--what is the point?
When we are allowing our children to decide whom they will room with based upon skin color and sexual orientation how can we expect sociity at large to be different?

As I recall, could always be wrong--but one of the pitfalls of the Chicago study was that the people making the call-back for the job were MULTI-RACIAL, that in effect blacks, whites, hispanics, men and women all acted int he same relative manner.

"Cabs"---did the study take into effect the race of the cab DRIVER?
Its one thing to have a white cabbie refuse to pick up black man---quite something else to have a BLACK cabbie not want to pick up a black man---or a hispanic cabbie, or an Asain cabbie, or a Middle Eastern cabbie etc.

Also might make a serious differecne as to where and what time of day the person is trying to get a ride.

Willam Raspberry and Thomas Sowell also make that very point.
Raspberry---a black man--pointed out that when walking to his car late at night from his radio show he is generally much more worried about a group of young black men headed his way then group of young white men.
Is that "racism?????"

Break the numbers down.

About half of black and more than a quater of whites said they had been the "victems of racial discrimnation."

I don't know how you would go about establishing that emperically---but the numbers lead to more than one conclusion here.

If "40 percent" of blacks think that "whites dislike blacks" and nearly the same amount of whites think that "blacks dislike whites" them is it any wonder that BOTH groups claim to see it???
Of course not---with that amount of PRECONCEIVED bais from the get-go, it would be nearly impossible to NOT conclude that it was what was happening.

The question becomes what amount is actually happening and what is merely preconcieved perception.

Are there problems?

Of course there are.

The thing to consider is how far we have come, what has been achived, not focus so overwhelmingly on whatever negative, to the exculsion of progress that has been made.

"That is not exactly what I suggested---what I actually said/was getting at was that making assumptions about the attitudes of millions of people that you have never met, based upon their SKIN COLOR was fundamentally flawed---which it is."

You may have posted this in the wrong thread!

I never said anything about the attitudes of "millions," I said, "a lot" and explained I was being deliberately vague to avoid overstating the case.

And I never made an assumption about anyone because of their skin color. I said that lots of white people have a subtle uneasiness around black people--that's true! I didn't judge any individuals and I didn't say that any others were exempt.

"People are far more than cut-outs of their gendar, race and sexual preference. And to treat them otherwise is to rob them of their individuality---it robs them of themselevs.[sic]"

I've never said otherwise. Individuals shouldn't be solely judge by their groups (Oscar Schindler was a nazi party member) BUT yes, you can make comments about groups (nazis). Groups do exist, and can be described. If the descriptions are factual, who's to bemoan them??

"Things are so much better now than they were 50 years ago that now they have to invent a whole new catagory "stealth" racism."

Is it invented? Or is it something the survey respondents agreed existed? I've heard from dozens and dozens of people that in the South, at least you know what people are thinking about you, and in the North, people keep their preconceptions more to themselves. I doubt this is purely imagined. Anyway, I agree things are a lot better, but caution you: things are equivalently a lot better for LGBs, in a shorter timeframe, and since you've recently been eager to state that the LGB movement is moving too slow, and eager to grasp at any hint of inconsistency, you could turn that critical eye on your own comments.

"Interesting to note the drastic differences between what people claim to precive [sic] in OTHERS but NOT themselevs. [sic]"

It is interesting. I don't think it shows what you may be implying it shows. I think it merely shows people are better able to fault others than themselves.

True, the article is a summary, and not a 100% recap of every source it cites. That is the nature of... articles. Want to make a point about whether the researchers overlooked such an obvious explanation (that the buyers ASKED for predominantly black neighborhoods, or in similar fashion, that the researchers ignored the cabbie's race)? Don't assume, go to the source.

"When we are allowing our children to decide whom they will room with based upon skin color and sexual orientation how can we expect sociity [sic]at large to be different?"

Choosing to room with someone is a little bit different from holding preconceptions about others, but I see your point--which is my point. Society at large ("lots of people") still thinks along racial lines and people are more comfortable with their own. Thank you for providing another piece of ammunition for my thesis.

"The thing to consider is how far we have come, what has been achived [sic], not focus so overwhelmingly on whatever negative, to the exculsion [sic] of progress that has been made."

Maybe you should have considered this advice when you wrote 5 thousand posts about how ineffective the LGB movement has been despite making similar progress? Listen.... I didn't say racism was an enormous problem, I merely said "a lot" of people still have "subtle" issues with it. I didn't say there wasn't progress. I didn't say I stayed up at night worrying about it. I made a minor little comment which you've essentially acknowledged is true by comparing youth behavior to adult behavior in the US WRT race, and you made a big issue of it. So next time, instead of arguing just to argue (and always doing it without bothering to confirm your assumptions or post a link), why not just do what everyone else on the forums do? Here's how that would work:

Me: "A lot of white people still have have subtle uneasiness around others of different races."

You:
"IJ, I see your point that subtle racism is still common in the USA, but I like to think about how far we've come and how much things have improved. Let's not forget the positives when we talk about the negatives."

Me:
"cxt: good point. I agree that lots of progress has been made, I just don't want us to be too satisfied with it when we have a ways to go."

You:
"IJ: that's true too. I think we're saying the same things in different ways."

Nope, you "rationalized" being "vauge" in post hoc fasion AFTER I called you on the skin-color based assumptions you were making.
The tone and context of the orginal statment was more in the nature of your stateing what you belived to be a self-evident fact.
Again, had somebody made that skin color assumption about blacks or such an assumption about gays--you would have come unglued.

And you determined this "subtle unease" just how?
You can see that someone is "uneasy" and just "know" exactly why??
Mind reading?
Empathic talents?
You walked up to someone and said "hey I can see your subtley uneasy--is it because your doctor is black?"

Sheesh.

Nope, there are MULTIPLE interpreations of why people feel others may be racists but not themselevs--kinda my point---interpretations that don't end with the conclusions of the article BTW.

But that is another point IJ--the ARTICLE ALREADY ASSUMED--the folks that WROTE AND PUBLISHED it failed to ask critical questions--therefore its critically flawed.
They assumed, much as you did, that the "answer" was self-evident and required no further examination.
So they either had the information but failed to include it--or they did not and failed to even ask the question of "exactly what were the parameters of the study???"--in which I am appalled.

Bottom line here is that YOU linked the article--so YOUR responsiblke for its shortcomings.
Please recall that I often complain that you don't do proper due diligace prior to posting---this is why, you kick out an article that "googled" BTW thinking it supports your pre-concieved poistion--and when it turns out ot be flawed--you don't want to take responsibilty for its shortcomings.

Doesn't change the logic--if we send our kids to school and let then argue that self-segration by race and sexual orientation is not only "OK" but "normal" then how can we logical switch gears on them when they get out in the world??
Every argument in favor of segreation on campus can be made in wider context----so if it can not only be tolerated, but widely embraced on campus---then we need to get used to it in socitey at large.
Huge step BACK in my opinion.

Not having the "gay marriage" argument again--AGAIN, if people got a bit smarter and used better arguments/tactics the whole gay rights isses would be as far along as other civil rights issues.
And that advancement was made precisely because they embraced wider methods.

Nope, I have no reason to belive that subtle or "stealth" racism is anything but a figment of the author of the article imagination.
I have no idea how to rest for it. And no idea how to quantify it.
Until I (or someone else) can--its just a weak guess--but among those WANTING to hear that very note--its going to get play.

There is a serious difference between "not be statisfied" as I am and painting current society as if things have not improved since the 1900's.

Let me get this stright---you make a huge assumption based upon your perceptions of how people of a given skin color think and feel--then you post an article which you found--post hoc, to justify your assumptions--and when the article proves to have more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings (ummmmm, fishnets--sorry, lost my train of thought for second ) you then want to lecture ME about "bothering to confirm your assumptions????"

Wow, staggering--if you had bothered to be less assumptive from the get-go none of this conversation would have even taken place.

You're a special guy. There's no subtle racism in America, but its wrong to read minds. There's no racism in America, but its no wonder adults act as they do given how the college kids act.

"You make a huge assumption based upon your perceptions of how people of a given skin color think and feel--then you post an article which you found--post hoc, to justify your assumptions."

It wasn't a guess, goofball, it was an opinion derived from multiple observations! I even listed em! The fact that a large survey supports me isn't negated because it's "post hoc." What fantasy land are you living in where everyone is colorblind? Or where "a lot" is anything but vague?

"Sorry to disappoint--but there is nothing "easy" about me."

You're right. It is disappointing that every time you inject something into a thread (and just you), instead of making meanful contributions, citing anything, linking to anything, or forwarding the discussion, you do anything you can to argue semantics and technicalities, hype up reasonable distinctions as inconsistencies, and trumpet absurd conclusions that no one else has supported (the LGB movement is using the wrong argument; it's moving slowly when its not; subtle racism is made up) that you don't have the background or experience to support. You deliberately also ignore the main points of other's posts so no meaningful progress can be made, preferring to go on tangents rather than, oh, noting the suggested model of forum exchange i just presented. It's not easy discussing things with you, because you don't have anything to say except "i disagree." It's also a waste of my time. I'd be happy however, to discuss race or sexual orientation or anything else with you if figure out how to converse productively, but for now, you don't bring anything to the table. Babble on, should you choose.

But instead, since you feel that your NEVER wrong about anything, you got your hubris up and are trying to justify your statement---even to the extent of pulling flawed articles from google to do so.

I know the article seems to confirm your pre-conceived bais--which is exactly why you picked it. But its a jacked article based upon a couple of flawed studies, with MULTIPLE conclusions.

I would have hoped that a guy that claims to be a "scientist" could think better.

I disagee, I think its "meaningful" when I can cut the legs out from under pretentious windbags with clear animus, bias and are partisen to the extent that they are incapable of seeing the staggering flaws in articles/studies--that would be you BTW IJ.
Its "meaningful" to lift the discussion above overly simplistic viewpoints and groupthink.
Its "meaningful" to expect better from people that claim to have the answers.

And lets cut to the chase--if I just agreed with you, slavishly adopoted YOUR opinions and viewpoints--you would find what I say "meaningful" as well.

Its because I disagree, at points with you, that you find it so distasteful.

Grow up.

Its clear by your tone that your used to people seeing you as wise and informed and an authority--and when the "little people" don't follow the "script" of kow-towing to your no doubt towering intellect, you react with hostility and bile.

I suggest that if your going to continue to try and foist your opinions and viewpoints onto others that you get a helmet--the internet is a rough place and you can often get your pretentions burst out here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO THE EDITOR:
Congratulations to Nunez-Smith and colleagues, whose work (1), along with qualitative surveys of residents (2), heralds a fresh paradigm in disparities research—a summons for greater individual, as well as collective, action.

We concur with the view (3) that data confirming the pervasiveness of subtle racism are consistent with U.S history and culture. In 1944, Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal, in his commissioned study on America's "Negro problem" (4), called it "the moral dilemma of the American—the conflict between his moral valuations on various levels of consciousness" and the persistence of social inequity. Strikingly, as recent as 2002, white college students in New England were unaware of their subconscious prejudices and of their nonverbal manifestations of prejudice, which were detected equally by black students and trained white observers (5). Nonblack physicians should remember the exasperation of Martin Luther King Jr., who wrote that "shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will" (6). Let them embrace instead a historical tradition of white champions of racial equality (7).

For physicians of African decent, Nunez-Smith and colleagues' study validates what was known but was often inexpressible. "Racial fatigue" warrants particular attention, because it complicates black recruitment, retention, and promotion. One of us found, as 1 of 2 African-American medical residents in an urban hospital serving mostly black patients, that not all health care institutions in black communities support professional diversity—not defined as the percentage of nonwhite health professionals, but as representation from the community being served (8). All such institutions have an imperative to diversify (8).

Although the struggle against racism is constant for black Americans, we have a tradition of being change agents, not simply victims. In black urban historiography, one of us introduced the concept of "community building" to counter the existing paradigm of "ghetto formation." When southern blacks flocked north, the fledgling black community in Detroit, Michigan, developed effective self-help strategies to counter racism (9). Let history continue to guide us.

A solution? Public administration literature suggests a critical mass of black physicians may empower them to counter institutionalized racism—a "safety in numbers" hypothesis proposed 30 years ago.

In 1974, Herbert observed minority civil servants who faced several forces that restricted their ability to advocate for their communities—their obligation to government systems, traditional role expectations, colleague pressure, community expectations, and personal ambition (10). Twenty years later, surveys of minority federal administrators confirmed that such problems were ameliorated by their increased representation in the workforce (11).

We suggest that nonblack physicians be open to introspection and wary of unconscious biases, apathy, or feelings of superiority. Furthermore, we feel black physicians can substitute bitterness with self-empowerment, isolation with collective action, and "casting" with unapologetic advocacy. Although racism in medicine is endemic, a candid but optimistic attitude will facilitate sustained and careful treatment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys done over the past 3 years show that minorities have drastically different perspectives on race and race relations in the United States than their white counterparts (1). For instance, African Americans are more likely than whites to feel personally discriminated against in public life and at their place of employment, less likely to feel that they have equal job opportunities, and less likely to feel that race relations in the United States are "somewhat good" or "very good." Even as ground is broken in our nation's capital for the new Martin Luther King Jr. memorial, African Americans are less likely than whites to feel that the United States is making significant progress toward achieving King's dream of racial equality.
In this issue of Annals, Nunez-Smith and colleagues (2) present the findings of a small qualitative study that explored how physicians of African descent experience race in the workplace. ... These findings are extremely disappointing and discouraging; however, since they mirror many of the perspectives on race reported by African Americans in society, should we be surprised? We don't think so.

A recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report titled "In the Nation's Compelling Interest: Achieving Diversity in the Health Care Workforce" (3) highlights that, of the 70.5% of U.S. physicians whose race and ethnicity is known, Hispanics account for 3.5%, African Americans 2.6%, and American Indian and Alaska Natives fewer than 0.5%. ...

Several studies corroborate the corrosive effect of race in the health care workplace (4, 5). Minority faculty, especially African-American faculty, are much less likely than white faculty to hold senior academic rank, even when the data are controlled for self-reported numbers of publications, research grants, and years of service (6); have lower career satisfaction (4, 5, 7); perceive ethnically and racially based disparities in recruitment for training and faculty appointments (8); experience subtle manifestations of bias in the promotion process; and face structural barriers to academic success and professional satisfaction (5, . Therefore, we should not be surprised that a group that still experiences discrimination in society, is underrepresented and disempowered in medicine, and has negative race-related experiences in the health care workplace would provide the perspectives described by Nunez-Smith and her colleagues. Another influential IOM report, "Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care" (9), found no direct evidence of racial profiling in medicine; however, given the persistent evidence of discrimination in our society, it would be naive to think that physicians were incapable of racial prejudice—or at least racial stereotyping—toward their minority patients and professional peers. Both prejudice (the conscious, knowledgeable prejudgment of individuals) and stereotyping (the subconscious process of applying beliefs and expectations about a group to any individual from that group) may lead to disparate treatment. Negative beliefs and expectations about minorities may be subconsciously "learned" from negative images and portrayals in the media or from the entertainment industry. Although there are probably multiple factors that explain the key findings of this study, we have ample reason for concern that prejudice and stereotyping are playing a role. ...

Where do we go from here? Unfortunately, some of the themes identified in the Nunez-Smith study reflect a society where race matters; they are not amenable to simple policy or practice changes. Physicians of color will always be "aware" of their race and know that race-related experiences may shape their interpersonal interactions. However, the perception of these physicians and physicians-in-training (10) that race-related experiences define their institutional climate—that they feel invisible and isolated, lack supportive mentors, feel "cast" when asked to perform certain activities, and are held to higher performance standards than their peers (2, 10)—remains troubling. It is also troubling that these physicians view the health care workplace as silent on issues of race; that issues of race are not openly discussed and policies against discrimination are not discussed, monitored, or enforced; and when faced with difficult situations, they must have a "thick skin." These experiences, which take a personal and professional toll, may be amenable to intervention.

For health care organizations that are truly committed to excellence and equality, several take-home points emerge from this research. First, these organizations should openly acknowledge that race matters as much in the health care workplace as it does in society. Open and honest dialogue, understanding, transparency, and partnership should trump defensiveness and denial when it comes to identifying and addressing the issues raised here. Leaders should create forums and venues for frank, confidential discussions with minority faculty about their experiences in the health care workplace. By unearthing issues that might otherwise fly under the radar, these discussions may serve as a catalyst for change. ...

Nunez-Smith and colleagues' provocative research shows that race matters in the health care workplace, just as it does in all aspects of society. We hope that leaders in the health care workplace are surprised enough by these findings to take tangible steps to ensure that all minority physicians feel respected, valued, and empowered.

"I suggest that if your going to continue to try and foist your opinions and viewpoints onto others that you get a helmet--the internet is a rough place and you can often get your pretentions burst out here."

Since we're out on that rough internet, and since your responses don't merit a direct reply, the best thing to do, I think, is to post a bunch of citations from that rough internet and let the continued weight of many references vs hot air speak for itself.

Note that it references "subconscious" attitudes---since such attitudes are infamously difficult to measure with any degree of accuracy--and such results argueable at best, I question its conclusions.

Also note that there are multiple valid reason for the perception of unequal numbers in certain fields--as has been throughly addressed by Thomas Sowell and others--merely counting raw numbers often fails to tell the whole picture.

And its just as easily possible for the OPPOSITE conclusion to draw--that Nuez-Smith has a preconviced bias and went looking for material to justify that position--and lo and behold found it.

Please note that the study was forced to fall back on SUBCONCIOUS notions of racism and this little gem:

"we found NO DIRECT EVIDENCE (emp mine) of racial profiling....however it would be naive to think that physicians were INCAPABLE (emp mine) of racial prejudice."

To translate:

"we found absolutly NO actual evidence of actual racial discrimantion--but since our posit is that there MUST be such--we fished around until we could argue that it must be there--even if we had to claim its entirly subconscous."

Even the researchers admit they have no actual evidence---that would seem a death nell to the idea those not idelogically blinded that is.

Also note the utter reversal of legal (know how much you love the legal stuff IJ) standards----since the docs in questions can't prove they are "incapable" of racial bais--they MUST be gulity of same.

Sheesh.

How does one prove a negitive IJ?

How does one prove one is NOT baised--esp when even the researches claim the is no actual actual evidence that such bais exsists?

How does one prove that in their deep dark subconsicious mind that one is not baised?

Short answer is that you can't.

And in this country we don't put people on trial for what they think and feel--only what they DO.

Hey, LBJ was a serious bigot in his personal opinions--yet he was a stanch fighter for Civil Rights--accomplished quite a bit for the cause.

So if even OVERT racism/bigotry does not prevent one from doing the right thing--does it make sense that subconcious attitudes would???

This uncompromising anti-racist manifesto written for a white audience is concerned less with Klansmen and skinheads than with the white woman clutching her purse when minority teenagers draw near; the white man flinching at getting in an elevator full of black men; even the well-meaning but patronizing liberal teacher in a ghetto school. Sue, a Chinese-American psychologist, argues that the countless daily slights inflicted by such "unconscious and unintentional racists," do more harm to minorities than the occasional hate-crime.

Any counselor or therapist, regardless of race, background, or motive, can engage in unintentional acts of racism. In so doing, they may inadvertently sabotage their own efforts and perpetuate the very problems they seek to overcome. Overcoming Unintentional Racism in Counseling and Therapy, Second Edition examines the dynamics and effects of racism in counseling with an emphasis on the insidiousness of unintentional racism.

White Racism (Paperback)
by Joe R. Feagin (Author)

Calling white racism "the most consequential [problem] for the nation's future," two University of Florida sociologists offer several recent case studies: cross burnings in Dubuque, Iowa; discrimination against black patrons at the Denny's restaurant chain; the readiness of the Boston police and the media to believe Charles Stuart when he accused a black man of committing the murder he himself committed-a case consistently mentioned in discussions Sue Smith, who said a black man kidnapped her two children before she confessed to killing them. Much of this has already been picked over by the media but the authors suggest that these events could have turned out differently save for certain individual and societal perceptions and reactions. For example, the authors uncover knee-jerk reactions in media treatment of 1988 presidential campaign scarecrow Willie Horton and rapper Sister Souljah. The book's opening description of the Los Angeles riots as an "urban rebellion" telegraphs a strong PC bias, in which the authors avoid nuanced discussion of race (try Stephen Carter or Cornel West), dismiss white (not to mention black) fears of black crime and offer such dubious proposals as reparations for slavery and a new constitutional convention that would entrench identity politics. Still, the authors are correct to say that blacks have more contact with whites than vice versa, and that whites must develop cross-racial empathy; those who have "some personal experience with exploitation, discrimination, or oppression" are, they say, more likely to empathize.

Resorting to posting what OTHER people think eventually reduces the discussion to "arguement by link" rather than getting to the root issues.

Take the above--by Nuez-Smith OWN ADMISSION, there is NO "direct evidence" for the contention.

And rather than deal with that self-inflected wound you merely breeze right by it and post other people stuff AGAIN.

And you wonder why I see you as fundamentally intelelctually dishonest.

AGAIN, such ahm......"books" you list above--easily dismissable as being more PC dreck that present a hysterical and intellectually weak approcah.

"Flinching" IJ "fliching??????----Love to see the data and methodology on that.

And a cop frameing a guy for a murder he committed?
So that is an example of racism and NOT just plain old criminal behavior by a clearly ethcially bankrupt individual.

Tell you what---I'm more than happy to conceed that murders that frame other people for crimes they commit just might be racists as well.

Happy now?

Besides your eariler post claimed that over 25% of whites ALSO claimed to the victems of racial discrimination--and those numbers are growing.
So how does one deal with people pointing fingers at each other and crying "discrimation?"

_________________Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

Last edited by cxt on Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I did. I said a "lot" of white people (and I would say all american racial groups) still behave in subtlely racist ways. Then I proved it.

"Take the above--by Nuez-Smith OWN ADMISSION, there is NO "direct evidence" for the contention."

When one reads, you know, a dozen links, and only one sentance (from one article about one finding in another study) supports their view (and doesn't refute mine--people can have racist feelings and not produce direct evidence of racial profiling in some situation), then normally, that suggests that the weight of the evidence is not on their side.

Analogously, if we're at trial, and 1000 pieces of evidence suggest that the suspect killed someone, but their neighbor says he was a nice boy, then he's guilty. Understand? Probably not. That's because you're so upset about the issue that my posting something that isn't 100% supportive of my view (without deleting the line! I could have!) is "dishonest" rather than transparent, inclusive and honest. You're blind.

And all you ever have to post is your unresearched opinion, which is that my researched opinion is faulty. Who cares? What kind of proof is that? Will you ever post something besides what just bubbled out of your cortex this morning? If and when you do, I'll be happy to discuss it in a rational manner.

But that is just it IJ--you didn't do any such thing--you posted some badly flawed dreck and then claimed victory.

You refuse to even look at the flaws in the studies--or that you even know what their methodolgy might be.
Serious questions for the serious person--not so much for an ideoligical driven pontificatior such as yourself.

All you really "proved" is that YOU think peoples skin color directs their actions and attiutdes AGAIN, had someone made such a leap of logic in stateing that "gays feel X" then you would have come unglued--and well you should have.

I not going to get into some debate by sheer weight/number of claims---I work on QUALITY NOT QUANTY.
And the stuff you have posted so far is seriously lacking in quality.
Does have the edge in expressed bias however.

(although in some forms of policy debate---the sheer number of cards that you can read DOES matter--but a good flow judge is seldom swayed by that)

Also its simply more proof as to how much people have invested in the negative---we are down to SUBCONCIOUS stuff here----and your treating it like a actual proofs.

You havn't even established that such subconcious stuff can be actually measured, OR that it has ANY overt effects, OR that it can't be controlled (as my LBJ example proves that it mosty certainly CAN BTW) OR that it only cuts one way--and your own posts suggets that its a MULTI RACIAL problem--if it even exsists.

"Rational????" Sorry IJ I just spit Sprite all over my keyboard at YOU of all people typeing the word "rational."
I'm not the guy that posted a study that SELF-ADMITTED that they had "no direct evidence" of their conclusions.
I seriously hope that you actually HAVE "direct evidence" when it comes to how well the drugs work you give to people. Tell me, when it comes to the drugs/medication you hand out--do you base it on anacdotal stories or do you look more to emperical proofs?

To quote Dr. Victor David Hanson:

"The rise of "theory" in our universites when there was a general withdrawl from empiricism, facts, dates....etc, a movement that allowed the glib but uneducated to spin grand suppositions without the burden of proof or research."

I would gently suggest that one should NOT have a lesser standard for what you put in your mind than you would for what you would put in your body---they both can result in serious problems down the road.

"But that is just it IJ--you didn't do any such thing--you posted some badly flawed dreck and then claimed victory."

I posted quite a many links to a variety of articles and studies. Do you really think that you are so wise you can dismiss all of it with a wave of your hand thereby proving there is no racism in America? Your opinion = one vote; the first link I provided contained just by itself, this observation:

"Almost half of black respondents -- 49 percent -- said racism is a "very serious" problem, while 18 percent of whites shared that view. Forty-eight percent of whites and 35 percent of blacks chose the description "somewhat serious." (See the poll results). Asked if they know someone they consider racist, 43 percent of whites and 48 percent of blacks said yes. But just 13 percent of whites and 12 percent of blacks consider themselves racially biased. The poll was based on phone interviews conducted December 5 through Thursday with 1,207 Americans, including 328 blacks and 703 non-Hispanic whites.

Even if EVERY ONE of those nearly half of Americans was wrong about other people, and we discount their votes, then there's an estimated 30,921,144(13% x 237854954)* white people who indicated they themselves are racist! If our sample was bad and that estimate is off by 10 fold, then there are still 3 million, 92 thousand, 114 racist white people in the United States. By their own friggin admission!

You're so obsessed with arguing with my original unassuming and basically obvious statement that a "lot" of white people have subtle racist feelings that you can dismiss a mountain of evidence, convince yourself that I'm racist, and draw inane conclusions such as "All you really "proved" is that YOU think peoples [sic] skin color directs their actions and attiutdes [sic]."

I don't think color drives belief, and I never said so. Just because there are "a lot" of racist white people doesn't mean their color drives their beliefs, just as (once again) the fact that there are lots of two legged racists doesn't mean their leggedness drives their beliefs. Heck, a lot of gay people have promiscuous and unsafe sex (but not because they're gay, and that doesn't mean all gay people do, but the statement is still true). These are facts, CXT, like it or not. You can debate the meaning but I encourage you to accept reality, or you might get hospitalized.

Again:

If our sample was bad and that estimate is off by 10 fold, then there are still 3 million, 92 thousand, 114 racist white people in the United States. By their own friggin admission!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum